TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... settlement, we find the Commission committed no error in accepting them and in proceeding to pass final order on such settlement applications. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1733 of 2017, AND SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1736 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 13-6-2017 - MR. AKIL KURESHI, AND MR. BIREN VAISHNAV, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr.Manish Bhatt, Advocate with Mrs Mauna M Bhatt, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr.S.N.Soparkar, Senior Counsel, for Mr B S Soparkar COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. These petitions arise in common background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts are as under. 3. These petitions are filed by the Revenue, challenging a common order dated 21.01.2016 passed by the Settlement Commission ('the Commission' for short) under section 245D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, accepting offer of settlement made by the respondents and granting immunity from prosecution and penalty. 4. The respondent no.2 in each of the petitions are assessees engaged in the business of construction and development of immovable properties. They also belong to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion passed the impugned order and, as noted, accepted the offers of settlement and granted immunity to the assessees from prosecution and penalties. 7. This order, the Revenue has challenged primarily on the ground that the assessees had failed to make true and full disclosures of their income, which is one of the basic requirements of settlement as provided in subsection (1) of section 245C of the Act. The Revenue has also questioned the approach of the Commission in not carrying out further inquiries. 13.06.17 8. Appearing for the Revenue, learned counsel Shri Manish Bhatt contended that the assessees had after making initial disclosures, during the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, made further substantial disclosures. This itself would mean that assessees' initial disclosures were not true and full. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Ajmera Housing Corporation and Another v. Commissioner of IncomeTax reported in [2010] 326 ITR 642 (SC), counsel submitted that it is not open for the assessee to revive its disclosure. Our attention was drawn to a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Incometax Vado ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a valid application under section 245C(1) of the Act. Additionally, the amount of income tax payable on such undisclosed income is to be computed and mentioned in the application. It needs little emphasis that section 245C(1) of the Act mandates full and true disclosure of the particulars of undisclosed income and the manner in which such income was derived and, therefore, unless the Settlement Commission records its satisfaction on this aspect, it will not have the jurisdiction to pass any order on the matter covered by the application. 33. As aforestated, in the scheme of Chapter XIXA, there is no stipulation for revision of an application filed under section 245C(1) of the Act and thus the natural corollary is that determination of income by the Settlement Commission has necessarily to be with reference to the income disclosed in the application filed under the said Section in the prescribed form. Para 36. We are convinced that, in the instant case, the disclosure of ₹ 11.41 crores as additional undisclosed income in the revised annexure, filed on 19th September, 1994 alone was sufficient to establish that the application ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Additional offer Shree Aadhyasha kti Enterprises Income as per ROI - - 2,10,810 0 0 Addl. Income offered in SC - - 0 87,65,000 1,00,32,930 18797930 50,00,000 Shree Shakti Associatte d Income as per ROI 27376 43,93,019 21,90,311 0 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 28.35 lakhs and for the assessment year 2013-14, it was ₹ 21.35 lakhs. For the assessment year 2014-15 such disclosure was ₹ 8.91 lakhs. M/s. Shruti Construction for the assessment year 2013-14 had made additional disclosure of ₹ 1.20 crores and for the assessment year 2014-15, the disclosure of ₹ 40.71 lakhs. 14. It is true that before the Settlement Commission, the assessees indicated that the additional disclosure of ₹ 50 lakhs each may be accounted for the assessment year 2014-15. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that such disclosures were, as noted above, in the spirit of settlement and to put an end to the controversy. The assessees therefore cannot be pinned down to the effect of such disclosures in the year 2014-15 alone. We cannot fragment a larger picture and telescope the additional disclosures for a particular year and taking into account the comparable figures for that year decide whether such disclosures would shake the initial disclosures as to apply the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Ajmera Housing (supra) and to hold that the initial disclosures themselves were untrue projecting the additional disclosures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
